What are they doing arguing about politics then ???
The judiciary is there to apply the law.

The Justices are not arguing,they are espousing their own personal
ideas of what is right or proper under the law. I am beyond tired of hearing
only the Conservative definitionss & look forward to a little more balance
in the debates.

I've Been Boo'd

I've been Frosted

Today is the oldest you've ever been, and the youngest you'll ever be again.

What are they doing arguing about politics then ???
The judiciary is there to apply the law.

A good question Wom.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

"Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

---

Over the years, the SCOTUS has taken on a role of interpreting the Constitution. As you can see, that is not a power directly given it, but it makes sense that it would become so. (The Marshall Court, the case of Marbury vs. Madison was influential.) But herin lies the the key... The Court is supposed to ONLY decide if a law is Constitutional, not to actually make law. Naturally, a ruling they make could motivate Congress to change or create a new law, but a SCOTUS ruling does not create law.

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)

To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Republican Friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This more-than-a-little-left of center Liberal says "Merry Christmas and happy New Year", Wom. I still respect other cultures, but I do say "Merry Christmas."

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

*************************

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)

To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

I don't usually post here, so apologies if I step on any feet.

I agree. During the recent elections, the local TEA party had stickers for the CSA, Constitutional States of America. This reflected the idea that the country needs to return to the roots of the constitution. They don't like all of the amendments or liberal views of the constitution.

Okay, I don't pay attention like I should, but I didn't realize that we had strayed. I explained to the seller at the rally that the constitution was designed to be amended, but it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy with that and just smiled. IMHO, this desire by 1/2 of our country to run the constitution through a conservative filter does break from the intentions of our forefathers.

Sadly I do realize that there are other issues behind this desire to "return" to the "roots" of the constitution. I also think it is a rallying cry, just to get people to vote your way.

We have also gotten to the point where we cannot agree to disagree any more. WE are each right and there is no between.

This more-than-a-little-left of center Liberal says "Merry Christmas and happy New Year", Wom. I still respect other cultures, but I do say "Merry Christmas."

So do I. So why all the political correctness ???
I respect other cultures as well, and some are offended by Merry Xmas ???
Perhaps other cultures should learn to respect other than themselves.
I don't hear too much about respect from them, but I do hear a lot of "I am offended" by them.
The melting pot theory is a great idea.......if we ALL agree with it.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

---

Over the years, the SCOTUS has taken on a role of interpreting the Constitution. As you can see, that is not a power directly given it, but it makes sense that it would become so. (The Marshall Court, the case of Marbury vs. Madison was influential.) But herin lies the the key... The Court is supposed to ONLY decide if a law is Constitutional, not to actually make law. Naturally, a ruling they make could motivate Congress to change or create a new law, but a SCOTUS ruling does not create law.

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)

To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

Fair enough. You all have a system that you believe works, if you are happy with that, then I say fair enough.

For me, a true Separation of the Powers does not allow judicial interference in political disputes (Bush v Gore), apportionment and re-districting (Baker v Carr). These disputes should handled by the Legislature or the Executive.
The Supreme Court has an increasingly central role in American governance.
Is that a good thing ???? Have the framers of your Constitution given YOU the right to amend the Constitution ??? They probably have.
Those positions tho are filled with politically appointed judges who stick their heads into the political arena, and themselves creating Legislation and amending the Constitution based on their own political ideals.

Dunno if that is a good thing Pucky. Here, the Powers all have their own responsibilities. The Executive and the Legislature are pretty well intertwined,
but the Federal Judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches.

Yeah, I read Marbury v Madison. They did a good job on poor old Marbury

One question I will ask you tho. From a vet to a vet.Article III
Section 3 - Treason
Why wasn't Jane Fonda charged with Treason ????

I agree. During the recent elections, the local TEA party had stickers for the CSA, Constitutional States of America. This reflected the idea that the country needs to return to the roots of the constitution. They don't like all of the amendments or liberal views of the constitution.

Okay, I don't pay attention like I should, but I didn't realize that we had strayed. I explained to the seller at the rally that the constitution was designed to be amended, but it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy with that and just smiled. IMHO, this desire by 1/2 of our country to run the constitution through a conservative filter does break from the intentions of our forefathers.

Sadly I do realize that there are other issues behind this desire to "return" to the "roots" of the constitution. I also think it is a rallying cry, just to get people to vote your way.

We have also gotten to the point where we cannot agree to disagree any more. WE are each right and there is no between.

Can you explain what you mean by "conservative filter" and how doing so breaks from the intentions of the founders? Or, can you share what you think the founders intentions were?

I do understand how you can feel on the point of not being able to disagree anymore. It goes to the buzzword "bi-partisan". That word is a very dangerous one. Compromise (Bi-Partisanship?) is OK, as long as one does not have to compromise core values to get it. I think this is where the deadlock comes from. The "sides" are so far apart that neither seems to be willing or able to compromise. Basically, each 'side' sees compromise as the OTHER side caving in. Its a pickle indeed. Personally, I think that a slow moving, divided Congress is a GREAT thing. Partisanship makes people think and be creative.

Fair enough. You all have a system that you believe works, if you are happy with that, then I say fair enough.

For me, a true Separation of the Powers does not allow judicial interference in political disputes (Bush v Gore), apportionment and re-districting (Baker v Carr). These disputes should handled by the Legislature or the Executive.
The Supreme Court has an increasingly central role in American governance.
Is that a good thing ???? Have the framers of your Constitution given YOU the right to amend the Constitution ??? They probably have.
Those positions tho are filled with politically appointed judges who stick their heads into the political arena, and themselves creating Legislation and amending the Constitution based on their own political ideals.

Good points.

I hear what you are saying baout the Judiciary getting invovled in political disputes. But, to me, you cannot have a TRUE separation of powers if only two branches are involved. The Judiciary needs to be the final arbeiter from time to time, when no other Constitutional solution can be found.

But, I cannot argue that the Judiciary here has become way to political. But what do you do? You can't have elections for them, because that makes it WAY political.

In the end... As long as the arguements stay about the Constitutionality of a law, it is working.

One question I will ask you tho. From a vet to a vet.Article III
Section 3 - Treason
Why wasn't Jane Fonda charged with Treason ????

Do you really need to ask? The fact that she is not in jail is a disgrace.

My Dad saw an ad for some new exercise video she put out.... He was less than pleased.

I think the founding fathers created a system of laws that would serve the country in their time but that could be amended by future generations to meet their needs. They, too, had to compromise to get the document written.

It seems like many conservatives put judicial candidates through a litmus tests of certain ideological values such as Roe vs Wade, Defense of Marriage, open homosexuality in the military, etc. I would hope that someone selected to a higher judicial bench would decide on the merits of the case and not just on their own beliefs.

This is part of the polarization of this country around the religion litmus test. I know many people, liberal in belief except for Roe vs Wade, who would vote for a conservative they couldn't stand if that person promised to overturn Roe vs Wade. I was raised Catholic and still believe, but I have come to respect others' beliefs and cultures.

Our elections and politics seem to have become a one-issue conversation.

Sadly the liberals aren't behaving much better. Rather than taking the high road, the liberals have engaged in political mud wrestling with the conservatives.

I think the founding fathers created a system of laws that would serve the country in their time but that could be amended by future generations to meet their needs. They, too, had to compromise to get the document written.

They created a system of government that ensures the highest possible level of INDIVIDUAL Liberty. Individual is important and much different than the 'liberty' of the collective masses. It was also intended that the Federal Government remain as small as possible. The Constitution grants the Federal Government a limited scope of powers and with the 10th Amendment, ensures that everything else is up to the States or the People.

As time progresses there are certainly needs for the Federal Government to need more ability to do certain things. I believe that it has grown WAY too big. So big that it starts to inhibit a persons Liberty, rather than enhance it.

Counter to that are the words "or to the people" in the 10th Amendment. The People elect our representatives and thus the arguement can be made that as long as the elected do what the electorate wants, its OK. Does that look like what has happened in the past couple of decades?

The People elect our representatives and thus the arguement can be made that as long as the elected do what the electorate wants, its OK. Does that look like what has happened in the past couple of decades?

No. But it's the same all over the world. I think Pollies have become distant from the people.....and I think it will get worse in the future.

Actually, I have more and more faith in my countrymen every day. The key is to actually talk to people rather than listen to the news media.

AND, we just learned that people CAN change. So, everything is coming up "Milhouse". LOL

Merry New Year!

A Happy New Year to you and yours to Puck

Funny thing you should mention the media. I was talking to a guy today who is the manager of a huge car sales company in Queensland. He was telling me that in motor magazines, the articles that list the best cars from No.10 down to No.1 based on test drives by the author of those articles, is nothing but a whole heap of BS. Evidently these so called journalists receive huge money kickbacks from car manufacturers to put their brand of cars further up the list..
I mean, some people read those magazines like they are the bible, and base their next vehicle purchase on the so called facts that are printed.
And these guys just KEEP getting away with this kind of stuff.